SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Omkar Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5564 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.16698/2018) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5569 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21286/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5566 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.18904/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5570 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21287/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5568 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.20530/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5565 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.18903/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5571 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21288/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5572 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21289/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5567 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.18905/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5573 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21291/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5574 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21292/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5575 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21295/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5576 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21297/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5577 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.21298/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5583 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.23805/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5582 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.23804/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5586 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.24184/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5579 OF 2019, (Arising from SLP (C) NO.23168/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5578 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.22532/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5584 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.23968/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5585 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.24176/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5580 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.23545/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5588 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.25476/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5587 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.24500/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5581 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.23724/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5590 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.16580/2019 @ Diary No. 35576/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5589 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.30148/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5591 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.16581/2019 @ Diary No. 35666/2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5592 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP (C) NO.16582/2019 @ Diary No. 42111/2018)
Decided On : 16-07-2019
TTC Eligibility - Interpretation of NCTE Guidelines - UP Basic Education Act, 1972, RTE Act, 2009 - [TTC Eligibility] - [Teacher Eligibility Test] - [UP Basic Education Act, 1972, RTE Act, 2009] - The court discussed the interpretation of the NCTE guidelines regarding the eligibility of candidates pursuing Teacher Training Courses (TTC) to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The court emphasized the literal meaning of 'pursuing' and held that candidates pursuing TTC were eligible to appear in the TET examination, irrespective of whether they had appeared in the examination or the result had been declared. The court also directed the District Education Officers to review the appointments of candidates who had passed Graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the eligibility of candidates pursuing Teacher Training Courses (TTC) to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as per the NCTE guidelines. The High Court had given differing interpretations of the eligibility criteria, leading to a dispute over the appointments of Assistant Teachers.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that candidates pursuing TTC were eligible to appear in the TET examination, emphasizing the literal meaning of 'pursuing' and rejecting the additional riders imposed by the High Court. The court also directed a review of the appointments of candidates who had passed Graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the NCTE guidelines regarding the eligibility of candidates pursuing TTC to appear in the TET examination. Additionally, the court addressed the eligibility criteria for candidates who had passed Graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the literal meaning of 'pursuing' as per the NCTE guidelines, emphasizing that candidates pursuing TTC were eligible to appear in the TET examination. The court also directed a review of the appointments of candidates who had passed Graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, modified the High Court's orders, and directed the District Education Officers to review the appointments of candidates who had passed Graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted. Applications for impleadment are allowed to the extent of intervention.
2. All these appeals have been preferred against the impugned common judgment and final order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 30.05.2018 in Special Appeal NO.506/2018 deciding the bunch of the matters.
3. The singular question involved is whether the incumbents who were pursuing any of the Teachers Training Course (for short ‘TTC’) (recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education (for short ‘NCTE’) or the Rehabilitation Council of India (for short ‘RCI’) as the case may be) could have appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test (for short ‘TET’) prescribed by the NCTE?
4. The basic education is defined under Section 2(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (for short "Act of 1972") to mean education up to class VIII imparted in schools other than high schools or intermediate colleges. Section 19 of the Act of 1972 provides for rulemaking power of the State Government and envisages that the State Government by notification may make rules for carrying out purposes of the Act. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 have been framed in exercise of the powers under Section 19 of the Act of 1972. Rule 8 of the 1981 Rules provides for essential qualification of the candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Master of Senior Basic School and Assistant Mistress of Senior Basic School for teaching Science and Mathematics and require a candidate to have Bachelor Degree with Science and Mathematics and training qualification of B.T.C., C.T., B.Ed. and B.Ed. Special Education or a course recognized by RCI and passed Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Government or the Government of India.
4.1. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short ‘Act of 2009') was enacted w.e.f. 16.02.2010. The Central Government in exercise of power under subSection (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2009 vide notification dated 31.3.2010 authorized the NCTE as an academic authority to lay down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The Constitution (EightySixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21A relating to the Right to Education was given effect from 01.04.2010. Article 21A postulates that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all the children of age from 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may determine. The NCTE, the academic authority, laid down minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to class VIII. The dispute in this matter is confined to the appointment of Assistant Teacher in Class VI to VIII.
4.2 The NCTE vide notification dated 23.08.2010 laid down the qualifications for minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VII as under:
(I) Classes IV
(a) Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 50 % marks and a 2-year diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
or
Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
or
Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
or
Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guideline framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VIVIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
or
B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
or
B.A/B.Sc. With at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.